[evlatests] your mail

[Bryan Butler]

we have always in the past left it up to observers to figure out whether 
it is important to them or not.  we may not be able to continue to do 
that, but for now that is the working model.

there is no place that the wrap choice is made outside explicitly 
setting it in the OPT.  if you don't set it (or set it explicitly to 
"don't care") then the executor makes the decision about which way to 
turn the antennas (i believe the algorithm is a direct copy of what was 
done on the modcomps).

in the future, we can do all sorts of fancy things.  in the future...

	-bryan


Steven T. Myers wrote, On 3/6/10 13:14:
> 
> If we are to not have issues like this for routine dynamic observing,
> then we at least need a way to make sure all antennas are in the same
> wrap (whatever the executor or scheduler decides at the time the wrap
> should be).  Where is it that the wrap choice (barring explict setting
> in the OPT) is made?
> 
> Things are usually more deterministic if you observe (ie. get on source 
> at least) a source that is well south of the zenith so it it guaranteed 
> to not be the ambiguous wrap zones, but I don't know if we want to go as 
> far as recommending this to observers.
> 
> In the longer term, if we don't go to full dwell-time scheduling, it 
> might be prudent to have a parameter like "min_dwell_on_source" that is 
> passed to the
> scheduler so it can evaluate whether to execute a given schedule at a given
> LST or not (the moral equivalent of running OBSERVE and seeing if you get
> enough time on all the sources).  This at least might prevent the worst 
> problems from slews and wrapping without requring the user to over-specify
> start times.
> 
>   -s
> 
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bryan Butler wrote:
> 
>>
>> the OPT definitely allows one to set the wrap if desired.
>>
>>     -bryan
>>
>>
>> Ken Sowinski wrote, On 3/5/10 17:45:
>>> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Vivek Dhawan wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just got done with a cursory look at the C55258.434 (AH1004)
>>>> chunk, it looks good on the targets; but the flux cal scan 1331+3030
>>>> is fringeless on 6 (otherwise good) antennas even though it is 4:15 
>>>> long
>>>> and most antennas got 1:30 or so dwell time. This should be repeated
>>>> with 1331 adequately scheduled, perhaps by moving it a bit later in the
>>>> schedule
>>>
>>> The fringeless antennas are clearly a wrap problem.  Whether
>>> it is an observer oversight or a loss of information in
>>> script generation I cannot tell.  The OPT allows wrap hints?
>>> The scripts in question had every scan marked as 'dont-care-
>>> about-wrap'.
>>>
>>> I suggest the script generator not include setWrap() calls
>>> unless the observer has supplied an explcit hint to the OPT.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> evlatests mailing list
>>> evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
>>> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
>> _______________________________________________
>> evlatests mailing list
>> evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
>> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
>>
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |:| Steven T. Myers                      |:|  Tenured Astronomer       |:|
> |:| National Radio Astronomy Observatory |:|  Ph:  (575) 835-7294      |:|
> |:| P.O. Box O, Socorro, NM 87801        |:|  FAX: (575) 835-7027      |:|
> |:| http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~smyers      |:|  smyers at nrao.edu          |:|
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------